tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6825389183865871671..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Why I Left ChristianityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56713849275169244942010-03-06T21:54:40.194-05:002010-03-06T21:54:40.194-05:00This is part 3 of my response to bfniii's comm...This is part 3 of my response to bfniii's comments.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>9. "Take Daniel for example, the evidence is that it was written around 175-164 BCE". some people maintain this view, not all.</i><br /><br />Those who dispute the findings of critical scholars on this point have apologetic reasons for doing so. Sparks (again an evangelical) shows why the critical scholars are correct with their understanding of Daniel's "prophecies." Evangelicals need to deal with the information.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>10. "the four kingdoms prophesied where Babylon, Media, Persian, and Greece (and not the traditional Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greek and Rome". this depends on which view you favor.</i><br /><br />This is not simply an issue of difference of interpretation or theology. The critical scholars have a consensus and arguments for why they take the position that they do. Evangelicals need to be honest with the data and work through it not obfuscate or offer arguments based mostly in apologetics.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>the reason to reject non-theism is because no person can substantiate the belief that naturalism is all there is.</i><br /><br />One can take a non-theist position without having to work through all of the issues of naturalism. As I've stated in other contexts one can come to atheism simply because there are no other views they can take.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>naturalism serves it's purpose but is woefully incomplete as a belief system. and yet, you're heading in that direction.</i><br /><br />I am more interested in evidential reasons than philosophical speculations. Whether naturalism is a complete system or not doesn't change my atheism nor does it mean Christianity is true.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>you claim to be agnostic but, refusing to make a statement of belief in regards to theism does not mean you're any more enlightened or that there isn't enough evidence to decide one way or the other.</i><br /><br />I never said that I refuse to take a position. In fact since I wrote that piece (it was written a year ago) I have clarified in numerous places that I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I'm agnostic in the sense that I cannot say with absolute certainty that god(s) do not exist. Why? Because there is always a possibility of one that exists. I am an atheist in the sense that I am not currently convinced that any god or gods exist, especially the Christian one. But with that being said, I am not closed to change.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81075391397948137972010-03-06T21:28:40.615-05:002010-03-06T21:28:40.615-05:00This is part 2 of my response to bfniii's comm...This is part 2 of my response to bfniii's comments.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>6."It is simply a fact that most evangelical scholars do not deal seriously with biblical criticism". there are tons of volumes written on this subject and i pointed out a mere fraction to you already. you are demonstrably mistaken on this point.</i><br /><br />Peter Enns and especially Kenton Sparks are two evangelical scholars who are the ones that make this same assessment. Besides most of the "tons of volumes" written from the evangelical side are mostly apologetic in nature. Granted you do have some half decent ones mainly from scholars like Bauckham, Blomberg, and Wright but I would be willing to bet that most evangelicals would not be comfortable with many of their pronouncements. <br /><br />bfniii: <i>7. "it is pretty much a consensus that Moses did not write much, if any, of it". while this is an interesting academic mystery, in the overall scheme of things, this shouldn't contribute to someone questioning the validity of christianity. i'll be glad to explain why if you like.</i><br /><br />An academic mystery? Although by itself the non-Mosaic authorship of the Penteteuch is not a make it or break it position, but when taken with many of the other historical critical issues it has an accumulative affect. <br /><br />Let me ask you, if Moses did not author the Penteteuch then who did? This opens up many questions regarding the origin of the various narratives and their historicity. This also affects many of the theological themes that runs throughout the text (and their implications for New Testament theology). <br /><br />bfniii: <i>8. "failed prophecies". i've been over this many times, in depth, with non-christians. there are explanations but some people choose to act like there aren't.</i><br /><br />Again you obviously haven't read Sparks nor his arguments have you? He details some of the evangelical responses and why they fail. Now, if you could provide proof of one of these prophecies being written prior to the time of fulfillment, then we can talk. For example, if you could provide a copy of Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus dating before the time of Cyrus then you would have something to stand on. Barring that the consensus of historical critical scholars wins the day.<br /><br />To be continued in part 3.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29595406321779520562010-03-06T17:54:31.100-05:002010-03-06T17:54:31.100-05:00bfniii thanks for taking the time to read my story...bfniii thanks for taking the time to read my story. See comments below.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>1. i honestly don't know any christians there are as hung up on titles and categories as you were.</i><br /><br />I wasn't "hung up" on any titles or categories. I was, however, very interested in theology. In fact a lot of people I knew throughout my 20s thought I would go into the ministry. I detailed my interest in theology in my story to show that I took the Christian faith seriously, wanting to learn about all it. This included reading what many had to say on different theological topics. Sorry that you are not as interested in things theological than I was, sounds like you may be the one with the hang up.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>the christians i know just focus on Christ's ministry and let God work out the rest. that's not to say they don't continue to learn because they do.</i><br /><br />You actually sound like you are judging me because I took a more serious interest in my faith, that's a new one on me.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>some of the intramural debates on these issues just aren't as life-shattering as you made them out to be.</i><br /><br />I didn't see any of my theological changes as "life-shattering." Are you referring to my statements about young earth creationism? If so, you misunderstand. My emphasis was on the initial shock of realizing that my young earth views were totally wrong.<br /><br />If you are thinking about my thoughts after reading Sparks's book, then you have misinterpreted the situation as the topics he deals with go way beyond simple "intramural debates."<br /><br />bfniii: <i>2. when you made moves like from yec to oec, you sounded like it was a funeral.</i><br /><br />This is interpreting my words in the worst possible way. As I pointed out above, I went through an initial shock, but then I found as I went through OEC to theistic evolution, I became more excited as it opened the doors to new ways of seeing things.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>3. the evidence for evolution is great. the evidence for universal common descent is still in question.</i><br /><br />Hogwash, the evidence for universal common descent is overwhelming. Those who reject it do so for ulterior motives, usually religious. Not only is it the consensus in the scientific community I can point to scores of professed Christians (Catholics, evangelicals, others) who are scientists and also convinced by the evidence for UCD.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>this point is greatly misunderstood by many non-theists.</i><br /><br />How so? And again, there are many theists (including the ID defender Michael Behe) who agree with the scientific consensus.<br /><br />bfniii: <i>4. "The natural history of life that is recorded in the sediments cannot be done by any form of creationism." false.</i><br /><br />Simply stating it to be false doesn't make it so. Demonstrate your position with evidence. So, are you going to argue that there are gaps in the fossil record (and there are) that that is evidence that God continuously intervened throughout history to create new species or to guide evolution along by injecting new information into DNA?<br /><br />bfniii: <i>5. "I had already rejected inerrancy" how would you know if the Bible is inerrant or not?</i><br /><br />What I meant was that I had already come to reject the typical notion of inerrancy in the sense that there are no errors at all in the Bible. This is simply not true. There are scientific errors in the Bible, there was no global flood, so the statements in both testaments that talk about it are wrong, there was no Adam and Eve, so Christ and his apostles were wrong in assuming that they did. Now, one can try to accommodate all of these issues and still try to argue some type of inerrancy, like Enns and Sparks do, but in the end they fail.<br /><br />I will continue my comments in another post.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11940389370353158332010-03-05T07:18:57.058-05:002010-03-05T07:18:57.058-05:00bfnii,
The hoops that believers go through to ma...bfnii, <br /><br />The hoops that believers go through to maintain their beliefs leave me shaking my head and rolling my eyes. <br /><br />Why go through the effort? Why insist on a belief-frame when the unfolding universe of which you are a part elicits potent states in a person who reflects upon it? Look at some of the Hubble photos, some extending back many billions of years in time. Look at life, and experience what it is to be alive. There is no frame of words which is adequate, and all that happens when belief becomes of overriding importance is that the ability to experience is constrained, limited and distorted. <br /><br />Leave belief at the door of experience: With the soul of a poet and the mind of a scientist explore, experience and live fully.Zero-Equals-Infinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429626270599344457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69322623244124486082010-03-04T11:16:17.511-05:002010-03-04T11:16:17.511-05:00anthony said: "my deconversion story?"
i...anthony said: "my deconversion story?"<br />i saw some really good responses from theist thinkers.<br /><br />my response:<br />1. i honestly don't know any christians there are as hung up on titles and categories as you were. the christians i know just focus on Christ's ministry and let God work out the rest. that's not to say they don't continue to learn because they do. some of the intramural debates on these issues just aren't as life-shattering as you made them out to be.<br />2. when you made moves like from yec to oec, you sounded like it was a funeral. have you ever heard of the copernican revolution? christians followed the evidence and not one doctrine was overturned.<br />3. the evidence for evolution is great. the evidence for universal common descent is still in question. this point is greatly misunderstood by many non-theists.<br />4. "The natural history of life that is recorded in the sediments cannot be done by any form of creationism." false.<br />5. "I had already rejected inerrancy" how would you know if the Bible is inerrant or not?<br />6."It is simply a fact that most evangelical scholars do not deal seriously with biblical criticism". there are tons of volumes written on this subject and i pointed out a mere fraction to you already. you are demonstrably mistaken on this point.<br />7. "it is pretty much a consensus that Moses did not write much, if any, of it". while this is an interesting academic mystery, in the overall scheme of things, this shouldn't contribute to someone questioning the validity of christianity. i'll be glad to explain why if you like.<br />8. "failed prophecies". i've been over this many times, in depth, with non-christians. there are explanations but some people choose to act like there aren't.<br />9. "Take Daniel for example, the evidence is that it was written around 175-164 BCE". some people maintain this view, not all.<br />10. "the four kingdoms prophesied where Babylon, Media, Persian, and Greece (and not the traditional Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greek and Rome". this depends on which view you favor.<br /><br />the reason to reject non-theism is because no person can substantiate the belief that naturalism is all there is. naturalism serves it's purpose but is woefully incomplete as a belief system. and yet, you're heading in that direction. you claim to be agnostic but, refusing to make a statement of belief in regards to theism does not mean you're any more enlightened or that there isn't enough evidence to decide one way or the other.bfniiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00716465039797535402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35737552394979569752010-01-14T13:35:03.144-05:002010-01-14T13:35:03.144-05:00Sorry to break it to you rob_cottrell; but, like ...Sorry to break it to you rob_cottrell; but, like the made-up legends & myths of the Old Testament, it looks like the New Jerusalem you look forward to is also just "make-believe". <br /><br />The positive changes you see in your own life might very well be the positive fruit of believing in an ennobling fiction; much in the same way as little boys & girls are better behaved in the few weeks leading up to Christmas because Santa is coming soon & "he can see you". This improvement in behavior is proof positive that Santa really does exist.<br /><br />It's distressing to find out that Santa is a fiction. Some of us take a long time to realize that the same is true of the Christian god.<br /><br />Better truth than dogma.<br />-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48662663098552242912010-01-14T04:01:17.362-05:002010-01-14T04:01:17.362-05:00I am without question one of the most blessed men...I am without question one of the most blessed men in the universe.<br />Over many years God, through His Word has worked on me, a rotten sinner and produced, and continues to produce something most precious and wonderful. <br />At 76 years of age, I am so thankful that God calld me in my younger days. He redeemed me, regenerated me, liberated me and continues to liberate from ALL bondages, sanctifies me daily. Constitutes me with His life and nature daily, giving me the wonderful hope of the glorification of my body at His soon return.<br />The tragic direction of this world, which world has become a heap of collapse will see its culmination in the not too distant future.<br />The heavens and earth will be burned up and replaced by a new heaven and earth wherein dwells righteousness.<br /><br />The consummation of all God is accomplishing is the New Jerusalen. The Universal Incorporation of the union and mingling of divinity with humanity. The processed and consummated Triune God incorporated with His redeemed, regenerated, sanctified, renewed, transformed, conformed and glorified tripartite elect.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18328898500757608370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73986483510851905092009-09-07T11:47:44.618-04:002009-09-07T11:47:44.618-04:00Faith without a rational cage is possible, but it ...Faith without a rational cage is possible, but it is not faith in a bounded projection conveniently labeled "God". We have faith whenever we do something which entails risk and where our knowledge of the risk is incomplete. Getting on an airplane, I may have a limited understanding of aerodynamics, engineering, and the procedures used by air traffic control personnel, but my knowledge is incomplete. My knowledge will always be incomplete. Faith comes in to support my incomplete knowledge, or fear of risk would prevent my being able to board the airplane. That faith is not rational, and by not being rational, it is not rationally undermined. The difficulty of belief premised faith is that faith is made contingent to a rational model. (i.e. The model is primary, while faith and experience are contingent.)<br /><br />So then what is faith and how is it best practiced?<br /><br />Faith is how we approach our ignorance. It is both a means to live in a universe in which our knowledge and experience is necessarily limited, and it is a confidence in the process and its origins, (whatever they may be), to allow us to move forward into unknown, uncharted spaces within and without. It does not require talismans, adherence to a particular tradition, or egoic attachment to a bounded projection labeled "God". <br /><br />Artists, poets, scientists, mystics, lovers, and any one of us who experiences inspiration has a sense of ineffability. Being able to openly be in that state without ascription to a dogma of belief is the critical distinction. <br /><br />One last note about religion: Studying the narratives which arise in different traditions is not without value, just as Tolkien's mythic narratives are not without meaning, despite their being fiction. Religious narrative has a lot to teach about the themes and forms which are meaningful to people, about the role of ritual, (and yes there are secular rituals also.) Those who have an interest may wish to read <i>The Hero of a Thousand Faces</i> by Joseph Campbell (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces ).Zero-Equals-Infinityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09489417026226728282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3168352950734857342009-07-01T23:35:02.645-04:002009-07-01T23:35:02.645-04:00Alan: Intelligence being birthed from non-intellig...Alan: <i>Intelligence being birthed from non-intelligent random particle motion is not "scientific" at all since it defies the law of entropy.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately you show that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Again, quit reading just YEC material and read something written from an oppsoing position. But since you already believe that you have the truth I double that you are open and objective enough to do that.<br /><br />Despite what you have read or heard entropy does not refute evolution, nor do you have the qualifications to decide what is "scientific." And yes, I know, I do not have the qualifications either, but the difference between you and I is that I can defer to the findings of science, you on the other hand have to buck against it.<br /><br />Alan: <i>I think you were too easily swayed by a dead-end philosophy of evolution which is a actually a recent nineteenth century phenomenon that will soon fall to the wayside.</i><br /><br />Sir, evolution is a scientific theory (I'm waiting to hear you say "it's only a theory, not a fact") and has been since Darwin, nor is it going to fall soon. I know creationists and IDers keep telling you that, but it's not going to happen, at least not any sooner than the theory of gravity is going to fall.<br /><br />Alan: <i>Look at the works of the creationist scientists that I listed above. Most of their hypotheses, theories, and discoveries have withstood the test of time whereas Darwin's has already failed - thus the need for Neo-Darwinian theory.</i><br /><br />The idea that evolution has failed because it isn't the same as what Darwin proposed is ludicrous. Evolution continues to be modified based upon further study and research, you know, using the methods of science. Back when scientists first began to understand genetics (yes, due to Mendel) that was the opportunity for the evidence to refute evolution, but no, genetics configured evolution in every possible way.<br /><br />Alan: <i>Some people don't even think that Darwinian evolution can be classified as a theory since it fails falsifiability on many counts. It's like a Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme with the govt. and university professors at the top and gullible student "investors" at the bottom.</i><br /><br />Only creationists think that evolution is not a scientific theory. And since you mentioned it, is creationism falsifiable? Let me ask you Alan, is Christianity itself falsifiable? I'm willing to say that it is and the evidence has falsified it.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87688447645956756192009-07-01T23:31:00.559-04:002009-07-01T23:31:00.559-04:00Alan: The "evidences" don't support ...Alan: <i>The "evidences" don't support an ancient Earth but the "interpretation" of those evidences. Likewise, there are numerous scientists who don't interpret T. Rex soft tissue in supposed 68-million year old bones as good evidence for an old Earth. Radiometric dating comes with a lot of assumptions whereas microbes in supposed 4.5B year-old meteorites refutes the idea that radiometric dating is fool-proof.</i><br /><br />Alan, what you wrote is wrong on so many levels. The ancient age of the earth and the universe in general have been confirmed by so many different lines of evidence that only the most ardent and subborn Bible literalist will deny it. Can I recommend that you read more than just young earth creationist material? Let me recommend a book written for the layman that shows just how solid radiometric dating really is, it's called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Clocks-Scientists-Measure-Everything/dp/0520249755/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246502049&sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">Nature's Clocks: How Scientists Measure the Age of Almost Everything</a>. There is also a good article written by a Christian for Christians called <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html" rel="nofollow">Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective</a>. Although you do not mention it I'm sure you are familiar with the RATE project which was designed to decredit radiometric dating, it was a miserable failure and has been totally exposed on numerous websites including this <a href="http://www.answersincreation.org/rate_index.htm" rel="nofollow">one</a>.<br /><br />Alan: <i>The philosophy of "materialism" is older than Christ, was well refuted by Socrates, and exists today in a new package called "evolution". Newton, Pascal, Boyle, Pasteur, Faraday, Kelvin, Fleming, Joule, Mendel, etc. all refuted this age-old philosophy and believed in special creation.</i><br /><br />Most of these early scientists that you list lived prior to the time of Darwin. I don't know off hand what Kelvin's views on evolution were but he did believe that the earth was at least several million years old, much older than the Bible (with a straight forward interpretation) would allow. Have you even bothered to study what the early scientists of whom most were professing Christians believed about the age of the earth. The more scientists looked at the earth the more they realized the 6,000 years was just not old enough for natural history to have occured.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77359893382401685632009-06-30T23:49:42.540-04:002009-06-30T23:49:42.540-04:00Alan said,
The "evidences" don't su...Alan said,<br /><br /><i>The "evidences" don't support an ancient Earth but the "interpretation" of those evidences.</i><br /><br />If you weren't clinging to the Genesis account as having some sort of God-given authority over this question you wouldn't write this sort of nonsense.<br /><br />The young earth creationist propaganda you are spouting is so far removed from the real evidence on the ground, that no scientists working in the fields of paleontology, geology, astronomy or biology would even give your assertions a moment's consideration. Is that because they are close-minded? No as you point out, evolution is being modified over time as new data comes to light & new hypotheses are put forward to explain the findings. Scientists will adapt their hypotheses to new evidence as good scientists are committed to truth over dogma. Your YEC contentions don't get past first base with real scientists because these YEC ideas are refuted by the evidence at the most basic level. <br /><br />The difference between a scientist and a Young Earth Creationist or an Intelligent Design proponent is that the scientist looks at the data & creates an hypothesis that explains the observations whereas YEC or ID evangelist have decided the conclusion and then start looking for data that might support the conclusion. Any uncooperative or contrary evidence is redefined or simply thrown out. This is not science but dogma...<br /><br />How do the anonymous undated writings of the Pentateuch (probably crafted sometime under the reign of King Josiah) have any scientific authority in 2009? I used to defend them too, but I now recognized them for what they are: Pious Fabrications (i.e. Holy Bullshit)<br /><br />The evidence completely & utterly refutes the Young Earth Creationist position. Quoting from 18th & 19th century scientists won't change that. I have no doubt that were any of these great men of science living today, they would scoff at the supposition that the Genesis version of events had any more validity.<br /><br />Sorry, but it is delusional BS...eheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62512870259641709552009-06-30T18:48:01.516-04:002009-06-30T18:48:01.516-04:00"It was during these studies that the evidenc..."It was during these studies that the evidence for an ancient earth became so strong that I could no longer deny it. Of course this led to a number of questions related to Genesis..."<br /><br />The "evidences" don't support an ancient Earth but the "interpretation" of those evidences. Likewise, there are numerous scientists who don't interpret T. Rex soft tissue in supposed 68-million year old bones as good evidence for an old Earth. Radiometric dating comes with a lot of assumptions whereas microbes in supposed 4.5B year-old meteorites refutes the idea that radiometric dating is fool-proof. The philosophy of "materialism" is older than Christ, was well refuted by Socrates, and exists today in a new package called "evolution". Newton, Pascal, Boyle, Pasteur, Faraday, Kelvin, Fleming, Joule, Mendel, etc. all refuted this age-old philosophy and believed in special creation. Intelligence being birthed from non-intelligent random particle motion is not "scientific" at all since it defies the law of entropy. I think you were too easily swayed by a dead-end philosophy of evolution which is a actually a recent nineteenth century phenomenon that will soon fall to the wayside. Look at the works of the creationist scientists that I listed above. Most of their hypotheses, theories, and discoveries have withstood the test of time whereas Darwin's has already failed - thus the need for Neo-Darwinian theory. Some people don't even think that Darwinian evolution can be classified as a theory since it fails falsifiability on many counts. It's like a Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme with the govt. and university professors at the top and gullible student "investors" at the bottom.Alan Clarkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04152392475770357205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40459960144879901752009-06-05T23:02:28.040-04:002009-06-05T23:02:28.040-04:00Dear readers
Would you please read my recent post...Dear readers<br /><br />Would you please read my recent posting on the same issue at <br />http://whyidonotleavechristianity.blogspot.com/?<br />Your any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much in advance.<br /><br />With love and respect,<br />Truth Findertruth finderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169028270839112225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13041042000979264172009-03-17T01:31:00.000-04:002009-03-17T01:31:00.000-04:00IQ is why some people 'get it' and most people don...IQ is why some people 'get it' and most people don't. That is not arguable and simply fact..inevitab1ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01782507201438829427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57155428993552110272009-03-16T23:40:00.000-04:002009-03-16T23:40:00.000-04:00Anthony,Thanks for your very well articulated stor...Anthony,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your very well articulated story. <BR/><BR/>Our personal stories have many parallels. It is liberating to not have to hide from the evidence or the truth isn't it?<BR/><BR/>I wish you all the best in your pursuit of integrity & honesty.<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57045975659017354472009-03-16T23:27:00.000-04:002009-03-16T23:27:00.000-04:00Bruce: Maybe some day I get down the Cinci way we ...Bruce: <I>Maybe some day I get down the Cinci way we do lunch or something. I live in NW Ohio now.</I><BR/><BR/>That would be awesome! If you decide to come down for a Reds game let me know as I can get tickets. (If you haven't noticed my profile picture was taken at a Reds game).Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33663944368915953992009-03-16T23:24:00.000-04:002009-03-16T23:24:00.000-04:00eheffa: The glories of Solomon's kingdom have all ...eheffa: <I>The glories of Solomon's kingdom have all the appearances of gross exaggeration for the purposes of promoting King Josiah's puritanical reforms ...</I><BR/><BR/>Kenton Sparks spends some time in his book demonstrating how the Hebrews used propaganda in their writings mimicking her neighbors.<BR/><BR/><I>Is this really God's word or is it a man-made construct?</I><BR/><BR/>Evan, what you wrote in your last post is what I have been trying to say (unfortunately falling on deaf ears) and is the principle reasons for my rejecting the faith. Evolution and some of the critical problems of the Bible were not enough in themselves to reject the faith, but combined with the shear amount of problems related to historicity especially of critical events and persons was just to overwhelming for me to believe anymore.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48754860500025149332009-03-16T23:06:00.000-04:002009-03-16T23:06:00.000-04:00Akakiwibear,You say this:"That said, to denythe Bi...Akakiwibear,<BR/><BR/>You say this:<BR/><I>"That said, to denythe Bible has any valid and reliable hisorical informaiton in it is the oposite of what you claim every Christian must beleive, and is also dubious, isnt it?<BR/><BR/>SHoudl we beelive that nothign in the Bibel is reliable history? Is that really a logical thing o buy into?"</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I'm not sure where one would draw the line here. It seems that so many of the key "events" of the Bible when scrutinized closely, are not verifiable or are in fact falsely described in the Biblical narrative. Does it matter that the the creation story is only at best metaphorical? That there is no evidence for a special creation of man? Fossil & geological records show us that the flood story is a fanciful myth. The Abrahamic saga has the hallmarks of 9th century authorship with towns & camels not present at the time when the story was to have taken place. The captivity of Israel in Egypt & the Exodus appear to have no substance in reality with all archaeological records & evidence contradicting the possibility that it was a real event. Jericho was uninhabited at the time that Joshua supposedly destroyed the place. David, if he existed, was little more than a chieftain in his small village of Jerusalem in the time when he is purported to have reigned. The glories of Solomon's kingdom have all the appearances of gross exaggeration for the purposes of promoting King Josiah's puritanical reforms ..& on & on it goes.<BR/><BR/>The New Testament is no better with Mark, written by an author unacquainted with the area he writes of using a Midrashic style, integrating Old Testament themes & verses into a narrative that again has no external corroboration. The other canonical gospels clearly had access to the Markan story but put their own spin on the story for their own religious or political purposes. They contradict each other in ways that invalidates the veracity of their accounts. The optimistic first century CE datings of these writings are put forward by those motivated by the desire to bring the gospels closer to the purported events, but we have little evidence that anyone else had seen or read them until the second century & rather late at that...<BR/><BR/>On & on it goes. Is this really God's word or is it a man-made construct? Do you really believe that the God who supposedly created the precise balance of the universe or the complexity of the genome would be this sloppy in documenting the essential & only path to salvation for those he supposedly loves? Would you let your son die a horrible death & neglect to document that fact for the next 40 to 80 years & then only preserve the writing of authors who weren't even there? It would laughable if it weren't so widely believed.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"Where bible can be relied on is in regard to salvation.</I><BR/><BR/>If the Bible fails to be reliable in the mundane things of history & biography, let alone miracles & other fantastic events, do you really think it can be relied on for anything that you can't test or see? Why would you consider the Bible to be a more reliable indication of God's word to man on matters of salvation & moral law than any other non-falsifiable religious book like say the Koran?<BR/><BR/>Unless the verifiable aspects of the Biblical accounts can be shown to have some measure of reliability then it makes no sense to rely on its unfalsifiable metaphysical claims.<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11946776422402973002009-03-16T23:05:00.000-04:002009-03-16T23:05:00.000-04:00Anthony,Thanks for the link to this. I appreciate ...Anthony,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link to this. I appreciate your willingness to share your journey.<BR/><BR/>Maybe some day I get down the Cinci way we do lunch or something. I live in NW Ohio now. <BR/><BR/>BruceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83034488175734074632009-03-16T22:04:00.000-04:002009-03-16T22:04:00.000-04:00Akakiwibear, you have been banned for your partici...Akakiwibear, you have been banned for your participation in an anti-Loftus Blog. Get the point and show some personal integrity here, which is lacking among so many Christians anyway. Abide by my wishes. I can no longer hear your words of faith and commitment when you show an utter disregard for integrity here at DC. <BR/><BR/>Be gone. Never come back. Use your own blog if you wish for you are no longer welcome here.<BR/><BR/>Period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79007585895393619702009-03-16T21:20:00.000-04:002009-03-16T21:20:00.000-04:00Effa, I've read Bart Ehrman, so lets not pretend t...Effa, I've read Bart Ehrman, so lets not pretend that all I do is sit abou and read Ray COmfort.<BR/><BR/>I've studied the Bible and its history for years now, and by no means have I limite dmyself to apologetics or Evangelical Authors. <BR/><BR/>I've read every theory out there, nd formulate dmy own conclusions.<BR/><BR/><BR/>why do I need to read Isaiah Finkelstein, whom I've never hear dof, to prove Im soehow open minded?<BR/><BR/>That said, to denythe Bible has any valid and reliable hisorical informaiton in it is the oposite of what you claim every Christian must beleive, and is also dubious, isnt it?<BR/><BR/>SHoudl we beelive that nothign in the Bibel is reliable history? Is that really a logical thing o buy into?ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60768879563624518912009-03-16T18:24:00.000-04:002009-03-16T18:24:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.akakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73093861292166608342009-03-16T16:51:00.000-04:002009-03-16T16:51:00.000-04:00Zarove,If you think the Bible is a reliable source...Zarove,<BR/><BR/>If you think the Bible is a reliable source for historical or other verifiable information (read falsifiable), then may I suggest that it is you, who is naive. Your reading like mine in the past, is likely far too safe & affirming for your well-entrenched presuppositions.<BR/><BR/>Try reading something simple like "The Bible Unearthed" by Isaiah Finkelstein & tell me how this book (the Old Testament) is a reliable historical source...<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps you accept the Gospels as reliable testimony to actual events?<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid the naivete may be in your mirror.<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/><BR/>-evaneheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52896457064904145672009-03-16T14:58:00.000-04:002009-03-16T14:58:00.000-04:00Effa, I actually do think the Bible is reliable an...Effa, I actually do think the Bible is reliable and trustworthy. This is ater years of reading Modern Schoalrship.<BR/><BR/>But that said, the CHurhc has acknowledge past sins, if by "THe CHurch" you mean he Catholic Church. Need I remidn you that john Paul 2 apoloised twice for the Inquesition? One only 9 years ago.<BR/><BR/>Uou seem rather a bit nieve if you think it hasn't.ZAROVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17668854596329493360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75821412350845120092009-03-16T09:34:00.000-04:002009-03-16T09:34:00.000-04:00Oops.That last sentence should read:I could be wro...Oops.<BR/><BR/>That last sentence should read:<BR/><BR/>I could be wrong, I have been wrong before; but, I see nothing in the Christian case that indicates that at its heart it is anything but a human construct motivated by a desire to know the unknowable & to escape the reality of our all <B>too</B> obvious mortality.eheffahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06453866415590607675noreply@blogger.com